5 ms·

I'd like to point out that the Texas law cited allows on-the-spot collection of fines to extinguish existent warrants [0]. That is, without this law, the option

I'd like to point out that the Texas law cited allows on-the-spot collection of fines to extinguish existent warrants [0]. That is, without this law, the options would formally be "be detained" and "be detained" [1]. This is strictly providing additional options. [0] The name used by the EFF is accurate but somewhat incomplete; these would be capias pro fine, which is a specific subset related to failing to comply with judgements. [1] I won't indulge the EFF's language of Monopoly-style "go to jail" here, as that's a pretty loose interpretation. You will be detained to appear before a judge in order to plead your case.

FireBeyond 11y ago
re [1]: technically yes, practically no. You're going to be detained to appear in front of a judge who is going to say 'you have outstanding unpaid court fines - you can pay them now or be subject to imprisonment'. All that is happening in that case is changing the location of the credit card swipe.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  > All that is happening in that case is changing the location of the credit card swipe. And the amount. +25% to pay it by the side of the road.
  - seanp2k2 11y ago
    Wonder what court fees would be for this. There's also sometimes the threat of impound which isn't cheap.
    - brandonmenc 11y ago
      True. When I was very young and stupid, I had a car impounded for unpaid parking tickets after being pulled over for a burnt out tail light. I would have gladly accepted a 25% fee for the option to pay right then and there to avoid the impound procedure. It would've cost less than what the court and impound yard charged me for letting it escalate that far. And not being able to pay the 25% fee, what would have normally happened, would have happened.
      - gknoy 11y ago
        I'd be totally fine with the idea that outstanding fines could be paid Right Then if they were more reasonable. It's the extra 25% that effectively Funds the Program that I don't like... well that and that it's effectively a dragnet for poor people. :(
s_q_b 11y ago
Yes, your additional option is to be extorted into paying a 25% fee. Let's do a root cause analysis of the problem, since it goes much deeper than mere small fines. First, the leveraging of state fines, backed by government force, disproportionally affects the poor. The poor are damaged most, because they do not have the money to pay the fines. Second, unable to pay their fines, many members of the poorest segment of the population are incarcerated for their inability to pay. Third, this results in a system where those that are incarcerated for debt lose employment, and are driven deeper into poverty. Finally, the most important part of this piece is that the state of Texas has set up a massive dragnet surveillance operation at the state level. Their goal is not national security. It is domestic surveillance. This technology should never be deployed on American soil, at this scale, and especially not for collecting debt.
- jdmichal 11y ago
  > Yes, your additional option is to be extorted into paying a 25% fee. How is offering a previously non-existent option extortion, again? Now, if the officers are not stating it as an option, then that is of course a complaint to be made. But nothing in the EFF article indicates this as a problem, so I don't know where this language is coming from. The subject (for lack of a better word here) is perfectly welcome to not take the roadside payment option, be detained, and pay after detainment without any additional fee. Which is exactly what would have happened without any of this. > First, the leveraging of state fines, backed by government force, disproportionally affects the poor. The poor are damaged most, because they do not have the money to pay the fines. The fines being discussed are only those related to copias pro fine, which means that a judgement was already delivered through a court and that judgement was not satisfied. If you want to argue for inequality against the poor in judgements, that's fine, but it's at best a tangentially related point and one I'm not interested in arguing. This system is purely in the realm of after all that has happened, and has no effect there. > Finally, the most important part of this piece is that the state of Texas has set up a massive dragnet surveillance operation at the state level. The data sharing is of course an issue, and I support the EFF in fighting against that. But that is also a separate issue than the option being provided to extinguish these warrants without being detained.
jimrandomh 11y ago
Game theory. If you think you might in the future be threatened by an extortionist, you're better off if you can remove your ability to pay because then they won't have the incentive to extort you in the first place, and so they won't. The same principle applies here. You get an additional option in a bad scenario, but it makes you much more likely to end up in that scenario in the first place.

FireBeyond 11y ago

re [1]: technically yes, practically no. You're going to be detained to appear in front of a judge who is going to say 'you have outstanding unpaid court fines - you can pay them now or be subject to imprisonment'. All that is happening in that case is changing the location of the credit card swipe.

Someone1234 11y ago
> All that is happening in that case is changing the location of the credit card swipe. And the amount. +25% to pay it by the side of the road.
- seanp2k2 11y ago
  Wonder what court fees would be for this. There's also sometimes the threat of impound which isn't cheap.
  - brandonmenc 11y ago
    True. When I was very young and stupid, I had a car impounded for unpaid parking tickets after being pulled over for a burnt out tail light. I would have gladly accepted a 25% fee for the option to pay right then and there to avoid the impound procedure. It would've cost less than what the court and impound yard charged me for letting it escalate that far. And not being able to pay the 25% fee, what would have normally happened, would have happened.
    - gknoy 11y ago
      I'd be totally fine with the idea that outstanding fines could be paid Right Then if they were more reasonable. It's the extra 25% that effectively Funds the Program that I don't like... well that and that it's effectively a dragnet for poor people. :(

s_q_b 11y ago

Yes, your additional option is to be extorted into paying a 25% fee. Let's do a root cause analysis of the problem, since it goes much deeper than mere small fines. First, the leveraging of state fines, backed by government force, disproportionally affects the poor. The poor are damaged most, because they do not have the money to pay the fines. Second, unable to pay their fines, many members of the poorest segment of the population are incarcerated for their inability to pay. Third, this results in a system where those that are incarcerated for debt lose employment, and are driven deeper into poverty. Finally, the most important part of this piece is that the state of Texas has set up a massive dragnet surveillance operation at the state level. Their goal is not national security. It is domestic surveillance. This technology should never be deployed on American soil, at this scale, and especially not for collecting debt.

jdmichal 11y ago
> Yes, your additional option is to be extorted into paying a 25% fee. How is offering a previously non-existent option extortion, again? Now, if the officers are not stating it as an option, then that is of course a complaint to be made. But nothing in the EFF article indicates this as a problem, so I don't know where this language is coming from. The subject (for lack of a better word here) is perfectly welcome to not take the roadside payment option, be detained, and pay after detainment without any additional fee. Which is exactly what would have happened without any of this. > First, the leveraging of state fines, backed by government force, disproportionally affects the poor. The poor are damaged most, because they do not have the money to pay the fines. The fines being discussed are only those related to copias pro fine, which means that a judgement was already delivered through a court and that judgement was not satisfied. If you want to argue for inequality against the poor in judgements, that's fine, but it's at best a tangentially related point and one I'm not interested in arguing. This system is purely in the realm of after all that has happened, and has no effect there. > Finally, the most important part of this piece is that the state of Texas has set up a massive dragnet surveillance operation at the state level. The data sharing is of course an issue, and I support the EFF in fighting against that. But that is also a separate issue than the option being provided to extinguish these warrants without being detained.

jimrandomh 11y ago

Game theory. If you think you might in the future be threatened by an extortionist, you're better off if you can remove your ability to pay because then they won't have the incentive to extort you in the first place, and so they won't. The same principle applies here. You get an additional option in a bad scenario, but it makes you much more likely to end up in that scenario in the first place.